1975-07-01 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - - - - - - - - - - - - JULY 1, 1975
The meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of
Allegiance was led by Councilman Hurwitz and was followed by an Invocation delivered by the Reverend
Charles N. Nahnsen, Pastor of the Immanuel Lutheran Church.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Beckom, Diament, Hurwitz, Sherratt and President Corica, (5),
were noted present. Absent: None.
MINUTES:
1. The minutes of the regular meeting held June 17, and special meeting held Jure 24, 1975, were
approved as submitted.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
2. From Messrs. Edwin F. Winberg and Arthur B. ROkC, Social Studies Department, Alameda Summer
School, requesting permission for government students to make a presentation.
Mr. David Robinson, 1227 Park Avenue, distributed a written report and made a verbal presentation
Of a survey taken of current local issues concerning (1) two-term limitation for Board, Commission
and City Council members; (2) election of Councilmen by district; (3) moving the Police Department
from the City Hall to the Post Office building; (4) development of multi-recreational complex
adjacent to Thompson Field; and (5) increase in rate of pay for Council members. He reported 1157
Alamedans of voting aye had been contacted and 62 students had taken part in the survey. With the
exception of Item No. 5, the majority of those contacted were in favor of each issue.
President Corica complimented Messrs. Winberg and Roke on their Social Studies program which en-
couraged students to become involved in matters of community interests.
Mr. Winberg asked the 62 students in the audience to rise and noted the students, themselves, had
identified the questions to be asked. He thanked those members of the staff who had attended the
classes and spoken to the students.
3. From Ms. Sandra C. Nylander, Director of Donor Recruitment, Blood Bank of Alameda-Contra Costa
Medical Association, requesting permission to acquaint Council members with the urgent need for in-
creased blood donor applications in the City.
Mr. Richard J. Farana, Director of Public Relations, spoke as a representative of the Association.
He stated the function of the Community Blood Bank was to serve all those persons living in the East
Bay and all 34 East Bay Hospitals; in order to do this, it was necessary to procure and process 220
units of whole blood per day. He said their organization had gone into an all-volunteer program
effective May 1, 1975, which meant it became more of a community responsibility. He noted the Blood
Bank had been in operation in the community for the past 27 years but had been very inactive in the
City of Alameda, and they were requesting a more active participation. Mr. Farana stated the age of
volunteers had been lowered to 17 years, and, with the cooperation of the School District, they would
be going into the high schools seeking volunteers in the fall. He suggested some type of committee
or commission be established to work with the Blood Bank in their effort to attract volunteers within
the community.
President Corica requested Mr. Farana to contact his office and set up an appointment so further
details might be discussed.
4. From Mr. Jack C. Gutte, 3016 Lincoln Avenue, protesting decision of the Planning Board and
requesting permission to rebuild the steps and porch on his property to their original specifications.
President Corica stated this protest involved a minor variance and that Planning staff was working
with Mr. Gutte in an effort to resolve the matter. He noted no action was required to be taken by
the Council.
5. From Moffitt, James and Mendelson, Attorneys at Law, signed by Mr. W. Larce Russum, in connection
with Planned Development Application No. 74-4 (Rancho Bahia).
President Corica reported this communication indirectly dealt with decisions which were presently
appealable to the Council, and the Planning staff had previously been directed to prepare a report on
the subject.
Planning Director Patterson stated the Planning Board, under the Zoning Ordinance, was the legislative
body in Planned Developments and had rendered a decision stating all streets in Rancho Bahia be public
rather than private. He said when the Subdivision Map was ready for processing the City Council would
be the legislative body, so in the interim of approximately six months the developer might be well
along with the project and be forced to change his entire approach and start all over if the Council
went with private rather than public streets. He noted this was essentially a policy question, not
solely concerned with Rancho Bahia, but involved all Planned Developments in Alameda, and there were
many policy issues which should be dddr8ssed.
On question, Mr. Patterson stated an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would be required to allow
decisions on Planned Developments and Use Permits to be appealed to the City Council, and this would
require a processing time of approximately three m0nthS. He said, regarding the Rancho Bahia project,
the developer might feel this was an excessive amount of time and was presently at a standstill
until some policy statement was made regarding public or private streets in Planned Developments.
He suggested a joint meeting of the Council, Planning Board, and staff might be appropriate to
discuss Planned Developments in general,
Attorney W. Lance Russum, representing Arbor Development Company, stated essentially the problem
was as described by Mr. Patterson, in that the Planning Board now made the final decision on all
Planned Developments which might conflict with the Council's decision on the Tentative Subdivision
Map and Final Map applications. He said the Rancho Bahia development was relatively a small
development of twenty-six acres, however time was of the essence, especially with proposed legis-
lation in 3aCrd08VtO. He stated they would like the Zoning Ordinance changed to allow developers
to appeal decisions of the Planning Board to the Council as to Planned Developments, as they felt
all final decisions should be made by the elected officials of the community. Mr. Russum expressed
his willingness to discuss the matter more fully and he was directed to contact the Planning
Director and City staff.
6, From Mr. Norman Berlinski, 1715 Chestnut Stree concerning Planning Department denial of
his request for a minor variance.
President Corica stated Mr. Berlinski had requested his communication be withdrawn and it was so
Ordered.
HEARINGS:
7. In the Matter of Resolution of Intention No. 8358 to order the vacation of an improved
portion of Alameda Avenue west of Oak 3treet,
President Corica noted this matter was being considered at the request of the Alameda Unified
School District.
City Attorney Stroud stated the issue before the Council was to hear the evidence of any and all
interested parties concerning the proposed street vacation, and to determine whether said street
was unnecessary for present or prospective street purposes, and whether the public interest required
such vacation.
City Engineer Hanna, with the use of a posted map depicting the site, reported it was his point of
View there would be greater public value in the use of the land with its incorporation into the
school site. He said vacation of a 725-foot portion of the street had originally been requested,
however this had been modified and the street would remain open between Oak Street and the west
edge Of the Swim Center, with a turn-around at that point.
Mr. Hanna reviewed his written report and recommendations in detail. He stated these had been dis-
cussed with Mr. Charles Tuder, Assistant Superintendent of the School District, who had no objec-
tion except to the condition that the cost of reviewing plans should be paid by the District, and
elimination of this provision would be acceptable. Mr. Hanna said thissame objective could be
accomplished by including the provision that payment for engineering services would be made in
connection with the contract work and thus would be paid by the State.
Concerning the effect on parking, Mr. Hanna said a study had been made showing 49 spaces would
be removed by the vacation of a portion of Alameda Avenue; the widening of Walnut Street would
provide a gain of 19 spaces, 22 spaces would be gained along Encinal Avenue, and 7 additional spaces
would be provided along Oak Street by removal of the existing buildings, a total gain of 48 spaces
which with the existing parking would provide a total of 65 spaces.
As to the undergrounding of utilities, Mr. Hanna stated the Bureau of Electricity would remove the
poles in the vacated portion of Alameda Avenue and if the two poles located between the Swim Center
and Oak Street were moved, they would have to be replaced by street lights at a cost of approximately
�2,000; also additional undergrounding would be required to serve the Swim Center at an approximate
cost of $l,000. He reported the Bureau had estimated it would cost them about $32,500 to move the
overhead poles on Walnut Street, and the School District would have to pay $15,600 for moving the
street lights and communication cable. He said if the poles were to be removed and the wires put
underground, then th eBurGoU would contribute the same amount of money as they would pay for moving
the poles over. He reported the other costs of bringing 1Ooondufts, putting up street lights, and
moving the c0m0UDiCatf0r cable would cost the School District approximately $45,695. In addition,
he noted the nine dwellings and the Christian Science Church located on Walnut Street were served
from an overhead line and it was estimated it would cost about $500 per unit to underground the
facilities. Also he had noted a line of telephone poles on the south side of Encinal Avenue, with
the power poles being on the northside. In this connection he had asked the Bureau if there would
be any objection to the Telephone Company's removing their poles and connecting up to the power
poles, and there had been none. He said he would follow through on this by contacting the Telephone
Company.
Mr. Hanna stated Mr. Charles Tuder of the School District had been unable to attend this hearing,
however Mr. William Corlett, the project architect, was in the audience and would be ready to answer
specific questions regarding the school design.
Councilman Hurwitz asked Mr. Hanna if the Bureau and Engineering Department felt the underground of
utilities would justify the cost. Mr, Hanna stated it was hoped the undergrounding on Oak Street
between Lincoln and Central Avenues would be accomplished within a year, and, if possible, this
would be continued from Central Avenue to Encinal Avenue; that since this was on the edge of an
existing undergrounding district and with the contemplated reconstruction of Oak Street, it was felt
this should be dO0e. He noted Gas Tax Funds were available for this purpose, to cover the cost to the
City, and the Bureau would pay whatever amount would have been necessary to move their poles. Con-
cerning the undergrounding of utilities on Walnut Street, Mr. Hanna said Gas Tax Funds could not be
used as Walnut is not on the select system of streets.
Councilman Hurwitz noted the Chief of Police had stated it would be well to have off-street parking
for at least the faculty of the High School, and questioned if there would be available space. Mr.
Corlett replied the question of on-campus parking had been discussed many times, however because of
the smallness of the site this had not been felt possible and any such parking area would necessitate
sacrificing proposed physical education facilities.
Planning Director Patterson commented that in the site plan reviewed by the Design Review Board, there
had been no poles shown and staff, therefore, did not address that issue. He noted the Design Review
Board was merely advisory to the School District, in this instance, and had expressed their concern
about parking.
On the call for proponents, Mr. Corlett remarked that the vacation of the street, as proposed, would
allow a logical redevelopment of the site. He said the site plan would accomplish this and would
allow the present buildings to remain and students to remain therein until completion of the new
construction. He stated the plan obviously could not function were not that portion of Alameda Avenue
closed.
On the call for opponents, Mrs. Patricia Payne, 2121 Alameda Avenue, expressed her strong opposition
to the proposed vacation of Alameda Avenue. She alleged this would greatly increase the parking
problems already existing in the area. Mrs. Payne noted the Environmental Impact Report on the new
high school had only two minor references to parking and nothing at all under adverse impact. She
read the memorandum from the Police Department which had been incorporated in the EIR and which
recommended off-street parking be considered for faculty members.
There followed a lengthy discussion of the parking situation in the event the proposed street vacation
were approved.
Councilman Beckam moved action on the proposed street vacation be deferred and the hearing continued
to the next regular meeting of July 15; that President Corica be directed to write to the President
of the Board of Education requesting a representative of the District be in attendance at the next
meeting, and to request from the Board an examination and response to the parking problem, including
a possible parking plan for school faculty. The motion was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried
unanimously on roll call vote.
Mr. George Gadsby, 1423 Cottage Street, suggested parking facilities be constructed beneath elevated
tennis courts.
A ten-minute recess was colled. Upon reconvening, the meeting continues with the regular order of
business.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
8. From the City Manager recommending contract be awarded to Gallagher & Burk, Inc., lowest and
best bidder, for the project of the Reconstruction of Buena Vista Avenue from Grand Street to
Mulberry Street, at an estimated price of S180,548,15,
Councilman Hurwitz moved acceptance of the report and award of the contract as recommended. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried unanimously on roll call vote.
9. From the City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary, mkdfOg recommendation on a proposed amend-
ment to Ordinance No. 1757, New Series, concerning condominium conversions.
The hearing on this matter was set for July 15, 1975'
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
10. President Corica announced the pre5edatiOn by Dr. Alexander Horne regarding the beach odor
study, originally scheduled for this time, would be made at the next regular meeting on July 15.
11. Held over from the meeting of June 17, from the City Planning Board, signed by the Secretary,
making recommendation on the Tentative Map for Tract No. 3631, filed by John Anthony for Kenneth C.
Aitkens, a 92-unit apartment-motel complex conversion to 86 ccndominium units for property located
at 400 Park Street.
Mr. Phillip Judge, Assistant Planner, reported the Planning Board had considered this Tentative Map
at its meetings held May 16 and June 2, 1975, He stated the map had been considered previously by
the Board on October 16, 1974, and presented to the City Council on November 4, 1974, at which
meeting the Council had enacted an ordinance placing a temporary moratorium on the approval of
condominium cOnversiOns. Since that time, the moratorium had expired and the ordinance governing
condominium conversions had been adopted and became effective April 17, 1975. At its meetiDn of
June 2, 1975, the Board, after hearing the proposal, adopted its Resolution No. 839 which submitted
findings for the denial of the conversion, and recommended denial of the filing of the Tentative
Map for Tract No. 3551.
Mr. Judge noted the following findings had been adopted with respect to this conversion as require-
ment of Ordinance No. 1757, New Series. (1) The building was constructed before the effective date
of Ordinance No. 1757, New Series; (2) There were code deficiencies in the buildings when the
buildings were constructed and certain alterations have occurred without benefit of permits and do not
comply with current codes; (3) Most of the units were deficient in the private usable open space which
is 240 sq. ft. for ground floor units and 120 sq. ft. for those units on the upper floors; (4) The
amenities usually found in private home ownership are not provided in this complex; individual laundry
facilities, sound attenuation of the structure and parking facilities are not provided; (5)
This project was constructed as an apDrt02Dt-motel building with a number of transient motel
units; this does not provide a residential living environment; (6) The approval of this conver-
sion would reduce the number of one bedroom rental units within the city by 63 units; (7) The
conversion of these units will remove a motel-resort project which provides living accommodations
for transients visiting the City of Alameda; and (8) This proposal would not be in compliance
with the General Plan. The conclusion was that this condominium conversion did not satisfy the
requirements or intent Of Ordinance No. 1757, New Series.
City Attorney Stroud stated the issue before the Council was whether or not the application
complied with the requirements for a Subdivision Map; that the Planning Board's recommendation to
the Council had been on the Tentative Map, as under the Zoning Ordinance, the Board's consideration
Of the conversion was the final decision.
Attorney Stanley D. Whitney, representing the developer, informed the Council this matter had
been pending since September, 1974, when the application had first been filed. He stated they
had drawn the conclusion from the comments of the Planning Board that it was bound and determined
this was not going to be a COnYersion. He reviewed the findings of the Board and contended there
was nothing in the Ordinance pertaining to the amenities found in private home ownership or that a
residential living environment must be provided. He stated the building had been constructed in
1963 before the effective date of Ordinance No. 1757, New Series; had been built in conformance
with the Building Code in effect at that time and had passed i05pection. As to the finding
regarding individual laundry facilities, sound attenuation and parking facilities, Mr. Whitney,
said all of these things would be provided. Concerning the finding that the approval of the con-
version would reduce the number of one bedroom rental units within the City, Mr. Whitney stated there
were numerous vacant rentals available and there was nothing in the Ordinance which said that one
bedroom rental units should not be reduced in number. He noted there were other motels in the
City with sufficient units to provide living accommodations for transients. Mr. Whitney protested
the finding that the proposal would not be in compliance with the General Plan, and alleged the
reasons given by some of the members of the Planning Board at the time of the hearing were not
legal, but ideological. He said if the property were converted whether or not the units would
5pl; was the problem of the subdivider. He alleged that at no time during the hearings held
before the Planning Board had any private citizen objected to the conversion.
On question, the City Attorney repeated and clarified his statement of the issue.
Mr. John Anthony, 450 Park Street, stated he had built the Coral Reef in 1963 as an apartment
house and it had met all requirements at that time. He expressed his agreement to meet all of
the requirements set out in the City Engineer's report of May 16, 1975,
Mr. Joseph Sullivan, 3221 Liberty Avenue, spoke in support of the findings of the Planning
Board and in opposition to the conversion. He said it was his opinion the facility was inadequate
in many ways to be sold as condominiums, and it was his belief it was the duty of the Council to
protect future home buyers in the City.
Mr. Stroud requested the following documents be filed for the record: Termite report and reports
Of the Plumbing, Building and Electrical Inspectors.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Hurwitz moved the filing of the Tentative Map be
denied, based on the findings set out in Resolution N0, 839 of the Planning Board. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried unanimously on roll call vote.
8. Continued from the meeting of June 17, consideration of a resolution limiting terms of
membership on City Boards and Commissions.
Councilman Hurwitz stated he had requested preparation of the resolution as he felt there were
many persons in the City who were interested in serving as a member of a Commission and/0r Board;
that the Council had initiated a procedure of accepting applications and he felt a limitation on
the length of service would permit more persons to serve. He moved the resolution be taken out of
Order and adopted with a minor change.
President Corica stated he, too, would like to involve as many people as possible; however his
concern was with a person who had devoted many years to a specific Board or Commission, had done
an excellent job and developed expertise, and then must be removed because of the term limitation.
Councilman Sherratt said he did not favor adoption of the resolution at this time. He noted there
were several technical Boards within the City requiring certain expertise, and he believed problems
might develop in the resolution were to be adopted in its present form. He stated he felt it
would not be fair to limit the service of any individual who was able to serve the citizens of
Alameda to the benefit of the community.
Mr. Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, expressed his objection to the adoption of the resolution.
He reported there were many residents who did not apply for appointment to the various Boards
and Commissions, and would possibly consider serving if asked to do so.
Mr. Joseph Sullivan, stated his endorsement of the resolution. It was his opinion a limitation
On terms would attract younger persons to apply for appointment.
Councilman Beckam noted the Council had previously requested the City Clerk to prepare a draft
Of the procedure pertaining to application for membership on Boards and Commissions and asked
when this would be forthcoming. The Clerk replied it would be ready for the next meeting.
Councilman Beckam suggested further consideration of the resolution be held over to the next
meeting of July 15,
There being no second to Councilman Hurwitz' motion, it died for lack of second and the matter
was ordered continued to the meeting of JUly 15,
Councilman Hurwitz requested the resolution be amended to read "two full consecutive terms", and
the City Attorney was directed to comply.
RESOLUTIONS:
O. "Resolution N).
Finding and Determining Certain Portions of Alameda Avenue, a Public
Street in the City of Alameda, is Unnecessary for Present or Prospective
Public Street Purposes; Ordering Vacation Thereof Subject to Re52rYat-»n
Of Permanent Easement and Right-of-Way Therein as Described in Resolution
of Intention No. 8358 Heretofore Adopted on June 3, 1975; and Directing
City Clerk to Cause Certified Copy of This Resolution to be Recorded."
President Corica reported consideration of this resolution had been held over to the next regular
meeting of July 15,
10, The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Sherratt, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8377
Adopting Specifications for Furnishing to the City Of Alameda Coin
Collection of On-Street and Off-Street Parking Meters, Calling for
Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: NOne, Absent: None.
11. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8378
Amending City of Alameda Resolution No. 8252 by Amending Paragraphs
3.B, 4.8, 8.A and 8.0 Thereof, and Adding Paracraph 9 Thereto,
Relating to Educational Incentive Program, Uniform Allowance, Medical,
Dental, and Life Insurance Plans for Employees, and Deferred
Compensation Plan for Management Employees,"
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried or the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: NVn2, Ab3eDt7 None.
12. "Resolution No,
Designating the Number of and Providing for the Compensation of
Certain Officers and Other Employees of the City of Alameda,"
President Corica reported consideration of this resolution would be deferred to an executive
session to be held immediately following this meeting.
Mrs. Alice White, speaking on behalf of the Crossing Guards, requested they be recognized as per-
manent part time employees and eligible to receive an increase in salary. She noted that under
the Tentative Budget adopted by the Council, part time employees would receive no salary increase.
She stated Crossing Guards worked an average of five and one-half hours per day, often in adverse
weather conditions, nine months Of the regular school semester and five weeks of summer school, pro-
vided their own transportation and uniforms and were not represented by any employee organization.
She reported adjoining communities provided better benefits and salary to their Crossing Guards,
and asked the consideration of the Council in the matter.
Mr. D. Glenn Tarver, City Personnel Analyst, reported a survey had been made this date of the cities
of Berkeley, San Leandro, Oakland, Hayward, Fremont, Concord and Richmond, the result of which had
shown the City of Alameda to be in a very favorable salary position with regard to Crossing Guards.
Mr. Tarver was requested to prepare a report on the subject for submission to the Council.
13. "Resolution No.
Limiting Terms Of Membership on City Boards and Commissions."
President Corica reported consideration of this resolution would be held over to the meeting of
July 15.
ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE:
14' "Ordinance No. 1764,
New Series
An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property Within
the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series."
(From R-5, General Apartment District, to R-5-G, General Apartment
Special Government Combining District - Applicant, Alameda Housing
Authority)
Councilman Hurwitz moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None.
15. "Ordinance No, 1765,
New Series
Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code Relating
to Traffic Regulations."
Councilman Hurwitz moved the ordinance be passed as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Beckam and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None.
Absent: None,
16. Ordinance No. 1766,
New Series
Amending Certain Portions of the Alameda Municipal Code Relating
to Traffic Regulations."
Councilman Beckam moved the ordinance be introduced and passed as submitted. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Five.
Noes: None. Absent: None.
BILLS:
17. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda and the Departments thereof, in
the total amount of $129,418.84 was presented to the Council at this meeting.
The List was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the claims shown were correct.
Councilman Beckam moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on
July 1, 1975, and presented to the Council at this meeting, be allowed and paid, The motion was
seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five.
Noes: None. Absent: None.
FILING:
18. Specifications No. MSP 7-75-6 - Coin Collection of On-Street and Off-Street Parking Meters.
19. Councilman Sherratt moved the Council retire to executive session for discussion of personnel
matters and to consider appointments to various Boards and Commissions. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Beckam and on roll call carried unanimously.
After a five-minute recess, the Council reconvened in the Conference Room of the City Hall for
its deliberations.
At the conclusion of discussion on personnel matters, Councilman Diament moved the Council return
to open session, The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried unanimously on roll
call vote.
There being no objection, the meeting proceeded to "Resolutions".
RESOLUTIONS:
20. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Diament, who moved its adoption:
"Resolution No. 8379
Designating the Number of and Providing for the Compensation of Certain
Officers and Other Employees of the City of Alameda."
The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and carried on the following
roll call vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None.
The President declared the foregoing Resolutions adopted.
21. Councilman Sherratt moved the Council again retire to executive session for consideration of
appointments to various Boards and Commissions. The motion was seconded by Councilman Hurwitz and
on roll call carried unanimously.
At the conclusion of discussion, it was determined no action would be taken at this meeting. It was
requested that the office of the City Attorney prepare appropriate resolutions to effect the appoint-
ments on which the Council had reached agreement for action by the Council at its next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
22. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned to assemble
in regular session on Tuesday, July 15, 1975, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk